Is that actually true? A settlement only binds the relevant parties. If it had gone to court that's be different, but functionally this is a private agreement. My understanding of law is UK centric, though, so can anyone say why this would be the case? Is there something wildly different about the American system?
True but with this (lousy) deal Meta ensures no legal precedent will be set and it publicly establishes a baseline of terms and installment payments all the states have agreed to accept. That turns a serious existential threat into, essentially, a capped business tax. The negotations with TikTok and YouTube will start with these terms and end not far from them.
The clever thing Meta did was make 30% of the money they're giving the states ($5.3B) conditional on the states getting both TikTok and YouTube to agree to the same terms. They're basically incentivizing the enforcers to find a way to force the same terms on their biggest competitors.
A settlement only binds the relevant parties, but I don't think it's terribly conspiratorial to think the details of this settlement are an implicit threat to Meta's competitors. "Meta agrees to implement a one-hour limit, but only after Youtube and Tiktok do the same" sounds very much like Youtube and Tiktok had better fall in line if they don't want to get sued themselves.
Comments
Is that actually true? A settlement only binds the relevant parties. If it had gone to court that's be different, but functionally this is a private agreement. My understanding of law is UK centric, though, so can anyone say why this would be the case? Is there something wildly different about the American system?
True but with this (lousy) deal Meta ensures no legal precedent will be set and it publicly establishes a baseline of terms and installment payments all the states have agreed to accept. That turns a serious existential threat into, essentially, a capped business tax. The negotations with TikTok and YouTube will start with these terms and end not far from them.
The clever thing Meta did was make 30% of the money they're giving the states ($5.3B) conditional on the states getting both TikTok and YouTube to agree to the same terms. They're basically incentivizing the enforcers to find a way to force the same terms on their biggest competitors.
No. It's as you say here, as well.
A settlement only binds the relevant parties, but I don't think it's terribly conspiratorial to think the details of this settlement are an implicit threat to Meta's competitors. "Meta agrees to implement a one-hour limit, but only after Youtube and Tiktok do the same" sounds very much like Youtube and Tiktok had better fall in line if they don't want to get sued themselves.